>>37294604

28

>>37294656
sounds reasonable, how did you come up with this figure?

bump, help a fat guy out, don't make me join fat acceptance

>>37294604
It's about speed/effort and time, not necessarily distance. This also seems like something you could Google

>>37294726
ok 15 mph average

>>37294667
I hit they keys right above w and i

>>37294656

I made it up to match the silliness of your question. How would we know off the top of our heads? There are online calculators for this. I've seen them. You input a sport, the duration, your weight and it tells you the amount of cals burned per hour. You can extrapolate from there. Just google that. It's not hard.

>>37294777

I doubt you could keep 15 mph at 216lb for an hr

you would burn according to this

http://calorielab.com/burned/

882 cal just for an hour

>>37294826
I used to cycle a lot before I got fat, never lost the skill. I did 34 miles yesterday.

>>37294849

well mr pro

why are you asking stupid questions

>>37294884

You guys are the ones answering them so who's stupid now haha

>>37294884
Seeing as I wasn't fat at the time I never cared about calories burned so I don't know

>>37294604

20 miles = ~ 1 hr worth of biking

Dependent on the terrain you're looking at burning anywhere between 400-900 calories per ride. Source is from my personal training so it might not be that accurate.

>Measuring your tren in miles
Not sure if serious

>>37294777
are you retarded? there's no way you run 4 minute miles consistently, or at all for that matter.

>>37294604
You could burn that going at top speed for 2-3 hours

>>37294790
Kek

>>37294790

When using the scientific method to recreate your solution I have multiple variable results.

28
38
39
29
and one time 2o

It seems this information was not properly vetted in the correct peer reviewed journal. Please check your diagnostic and findings.